[yesplease]

Still having trouble w/ the difference between a statement that's correct and one that's "good" RE?

[Ludi]

Happenned in the Great Depression, why would it not be happening now? You honestly think as fewer people on earth can afford food that MORE people are born than die? That is ridiculous.

The birthrate declined during the Great Depression, but the population continued to grow, it did not shrink.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html

[Revi]

This time it's going to shrink. I was thinking about it and it will happen pretty quickly now. What are we going to do with all these people without a livelihood? I just heard a story on NPR about soup kitchens running out of funding.

Look around you. I don't know about the area you live in, but here in rural Maine the population is shrinking. Maybe it's just here.

[Ludi]

This time it's going to shrink.

Yes, but the point I am trying to make is it is not currently shrinking. The Die-Off has not begun, there is no evidence it has. We are still talking about something that will happen in the future. Until the world human population actually is shrinking we are not experiencing Die-Off.

See what I'm saying?

Call me nuts but I think it is important to distinguish between something we anticipate happening and something which is actually happening.

You say "look around you." In my area the population is still growing.

[Revi]

Some of the people in your area came from my state, Ludi. That and the fact that you are in an area that has resources means that the population is still growing in those places where the oil is flowing. I think it will shrink in those places that have less energy now. They won't be throwing off jobs and livelihoods like they were. People are mobile. They move to where they will be able to make a life.

A friend noticed that all the houses beyond the end of the cable television were abandoned on his road now.

[Ludi]

Yes, but a population moving from one area to another is not a "Die-Off."

[Revi]

No, you are right. It's not a die off yet. I think you'll find a few places where the population is actually dying off in the world, but they are really messed up like Zimbabwe. Other places are gaining a lot, so I would say that the worldwide die-off has not yet begun.

People are beginning to migrate towards those place where the food is still being handed out however.

We may be close to a die off, but we're not there yet.

[Ludi]

Barring a pandemic, I would expect it to be several years, perhaps even decades, before we see a worldwide Die-Off.

That's my Bold Prediction of the day.

[Revi]

I think 5 years is a good guess. I hope we make it a little longer, but around 5 years from now things will be getting pretty dicey.

[eastbay]

Barring a pandemic, I would expect it to be several years, perhaps even decades, before we see a worldwide Die-Off.

That's my Bold Prediction of the day.

Nope. It started already. The snowball of death is now rolling. It's just that it'll be rolling fairly slowly at first. But soon it'll be quite visible... increasing in size plain for all to see.

Have a nice day.

[Ludi]

Nope. It started already. The snowball of death is now rolling.

Where are these millions of people dying? Where's your evidence? Please present evidence that the world death rate is currently exceeding the world death rate.

Seriously.

I call bullpucky.

[kublikhan]

I submit that the peak and subsequent decline in American oil output had everything to do with it.
Up until the eighties, we could make money "the old fashioned way." We could build things, sell things, and grow things. Peak American oil (among other important resources) meant we could now only borrow things. (and the rest of the world could lend us things)

I disagree. A peaking of American oil did not cause the decline of the US manufacturing base. Outsourcing and globalization did. We could have very easily kept the US manufacturing base even with an oil import bill. Neither was the US consumption binge unavoidable. Sound economic policy could have encouraged saving, exports, and lower consumption. We pursued none of these things.

This is one of those subjects that isn't worth debating. If you can't see, or won't to take the time to understand the links between energy and the economy you probably never will.

Of course energy prices can lower or raise economic activity. But your comment seems to suggest that is the only thing that can raise or lower economic activity. But other factors can as well. A massive implosion in credit, for example. The thread topic was debating if the prime mover in the recent recession was high energy prices or financial problems. Which ever side of the debate you way in on, you should not have such a closed mind as to think only you could be right and everyone else is ignorant.

The Die Off has begun

Got evidence the world population is shrinking?

Absolutely. The economy is shrinking. The economy represents the sum of all the people on earth. Economy shrinks, population shrinks. Happenned in the Great Depression, why would it not be happening now? You honestly think as fewer people on earth can afford food that MORE people are born than die? That is ridiculous.
Reverse Engineer

:/ First off, the population did not shrink during the great depression. It grew. Secondly, a shrinking economy does not equal a shrinking population. Third, yes I do think a country can increase it's population even if its economy shrinks. It's called a declining standard of living. I might not think its a good thing, but yes, it is possible, and does happen in reality.

[kublikhan]

Perhaps dave67 and mos6507 you could actually offer your non-peak oil root cause reason(s) for the 'credit crisis.' This lets us each decide if it is better theory or not.

Neither of you has offered a reason in this thread.
So if not rooted in peak oil plateau effects what caused it?

Personally I say fiat money and Wall Street corruption (Pyramid scheme overreach) caused it. Arrival and larger awareness of oil production plateau (and other resource constraints) means the economy will not cycle back to new heights.

Peak Oil could still be the root cause as one could make the case arrival and/or awareness of peak or plateau prevented some new bubble being formed to replace real-estate and continue Wall Street's games.

I'll post a non-peak oil theory on the cause of the economic crisis. Principally, I think easy credit was largely responsible. In an effort to bail the US out of the recession that followed that dot com bubble bursting, Greenspan lowered the federal funds rate to 1%, injecting huge amounts of easy money into the system and causing and unsustainable boom. This did not bail the US out of the post dot com bust, but only set us up for an even bigger fall further down the road, which we are now experiencing.
Other factors:
Changes To The Community Reinvestment Act
Moral Hazard
Lax Regulations
High Commodity Prices
etc.

In the period before 2008, it was not the increase in the supplies of Gold Bullion which was distorting the money supply, but a huge increase in debt of all kinds – national, corporate, banking and personal. This did not lead to any particularly large increase in the prices of consumer goods, but it did lead to an increase in asset values, and particularly in housing prices, where the high prices were financed by collateralized mortgage instruments. Eventually this monetary inflation also resulted in an almost vertical increase in the price of oil, accompanied by a similar rise in the price of gas.

The Bankers Panic Of 2008

[Armageddon]

After pondering over this debate for a few days, I have come to the conclusion that PO most definitely is the culprit for the economy collapsing. When the US was dominating the world in manufacturing and all phases , they were the world's leading oil exporter. This is a fact. The US was a creditor nation and a net oil exporter. Now, after the oil has peaked in the US, look how things have changed. The US is now the most indebted nation in the world. It also imports the most oil in the world. A nation that no longer manufactures things, the US can't rely on borrowing any longer. It is a failed model and we can look back and see this all changed when the US became an oil importing nation. This is not a coincidence.

[MonteQuest]

You honestly think as fewer people on earth can afford food that MORE people are born than die? That is ridiculous.

Sorry, it is called overshoot; the population continues to grow even in the face of declining food and resources. It will lead to a die-off.

[eastbay]

Hi Ludi. Good morning!


See Monte's posting above. It expresses my sentiments exactly on the topic.

[yesplease]

In the face of declining food and resources a population will only face die off if they do not suitably change their behavior in time. The amount of time is proportional to the amount of superfluous (wasteful) use both in terms of necessary food and resources as well as the decline rate of those food/resources.

[yeahbut]

Hi Ludi. Good morning!


See Monte's posting above. It expresses my sentiments exactly on the topic.

Well that's good, because Monte confirms what Ludi said. She called bs on RE's claim that

The Die Off has begun

which is bs as Monte points out:

Sorry, it is called overshoot...It will lead to a die-off

So everybody is in agreement, ain't that nice, it's like one big happy family round here

[Ludi]

Well that's good, because Monte confirms what Ludi said. She called bs on RE's claim that

The Die Off has begun

which is bs as Monte points out:

Sorry, it is called overshoot...It will lead to a die-off

Yes, thank you. I'm trying (against the odds, it seems) to make a distinction between something that is currently happening and something that will happen in the future. If the death rate is not currently exceeding the birth rate, then we are not experiencing Die-off.


Just so folks can see how far we need to go until we start dying off, here are links to charts of recent and current birth and death rates:


Birth rate


Death Rate

As you can see, the world death rate will need to more than double to exceed the birth rate. Personally, I think we would notice this happening and that it would make the news. There would be plenty of evidence of this occurring.

[kublikhan]

After pondering over this debate for a few days, I have come to the conclusion that PO most definitely is the culprit for the economy collapsing. When the US was dominating the world in manufacturing and all phases , they were the world's leading oil exporter. This is a fact. The US was a creditor nation and a net oil exporter. Now, after the oil has peaked in the US, look how things have changed. The US is now the most indebted nation in the world. It also imports the most oil in the world. A nation that no longer manufactures things, the US can't rely on borrowing any longer. It is a failed model and we can look back and see this all changed when the US became an oil importing nation. This is not a coincidence.

Again, I disagree. You don't have to have rich deposits of oil to be a major exporter or creditor nation. See Japan. And it's not like we are exporting our manufacturing base to oil rich countries. We exported our manufacturing base to the 2nd largest oil importer in the world. I am not buying any of this weak reasoning that the peak in the US's oil was the reason for the dismantling of the US manufacturing base.